How good are the CAI member HOA attorneys?

Ever wonder if the CAI member HOA attorneys are worth their fees? How good are they? What’s their Win – Loss stats? This data is very difficult to come by from the trial courts, and even from the appellate courts where records are kept. Of course, we wouldn’t want to get these stats from CAI unless their source data is provided for independent inspection, which is a problem based on the recent CAI “satisfaction surveys” lacking in such material disclosures.

Fortunately, detailed records are available from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) where proceedings are recorded and decisions posted on the internet. For the short period of 28 months (from September 2006 to February 2009), this state agency was permitted to adjudicate HOA disputes, and decided 52 out of 66 petitions.  Although this is a limited sampling not related to civil court cases — where the Rules of Civil Procedure come into play against the Pro Per — these OAH hearings present a leveling of the litigation playing field. An analysis of these cases will provide a good clue to the litigation value of an HOA attorney, and to whether or not engaging a CAI member attorney resulted in improved success.

A colleague gathered the data, which showed the following prevailing party percentages:

HOA                    53.8%
Homeowner   40.4%
Split                      5.8%

This is quite surprising given that in almost all the cases the homeowner was a Pro Per and the HOA was represented by an attorney; and given the fact that the state laws are clearly pro-HOA, and the governing documents amount to an adhesion contract in favor of the HOA. What the percentages seem to be saying is that “black letter” provisions of the statutes or governing documents — it’s right there, in black and white — were violated by the HOA. That an unambiguous provision had been violated and yet the HOA and its attorney failed to “own up” and voluntarily correct these obvious violations. That it took a hearing by the victimized homeowner in order to obtain justice.

The question before us to be answered is: did using a CAI member attorney improve the stats? Roughly 38% of the petitions, 20 out of 52, involved one of four CAI member attorney firms, with

CAI prevailed                            55.0%
Homeowner prevailed           45.0%

Intuitively, and supported by statistical analysis, engaging CAI member attorneys had no impact on the outcome of the hearings. We then ask: What role, if any, do these attorneys play in HOA disputes? And the answer, partly addressed in the highlighted sentence in the earlier paragraph, and from the prolific advisories from one CAI member firm, Carpenter Hazlewood, is: to seek and promote loopholes and technicalities in the law and governing documents that would lead to adversarial litigation.

Arizona's new "Take That George!" law: officials don't have to defend HOA statutes

This law was introduced, I firmly believe, as a result of my repeated chastising of our elected officials, over the past year, for their failure of to defend the constitutionality of the statutes that permitted the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to adjudicate homeowner association disputes.  I take it as a feeling of guilt that this bill was introduced.

The adjudication of HOA complaints by OAH had leveled the playing field somewhat, providing attainable —”affordable”, to use a term used to defend the state’s protection of HOAs — justice, where the homeowner could go before an independent tribunal, without a lawyer and without the need to know the 100 odd rules of civil procedure contained in some 200 pages of “legalize.”  The constitutionality of the statute was not defended by the Attorney General, or by the legislative leadership, resulting in a superior court disgraceful default decision. A homeowner has no place to go, not even to the OAH where he could once hope to have found justice.  In the short history of OAH, pro per homeowners won 42% of their petitions against their HOA and its attorney.

This total disregard of my letter follows a flat denial, without explanation, of my February 11, 2009 Motion to Intervene, which was an abuse of discretion by Judge McMurdie.  Perhaps it was because I had included the Attorney General’s defense of the constitutionality of the statute in a prior case which would have caused a trial and an embarrassment to the AG), LC2007-00598 (Waugaman), given that the AG and Legislature now failed to defend the statute in this case. (See The State of Arizona will not protect buyers of HOA homes!, Feb. 29, 2009).

Ariz. Sess. L., Ch 105 (2010).
HB 2774 addition:

ARS 12-1841

D. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO COMPEL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE TO INTERVENE AS A PARTY IN ANY PROCEEDING OR TO PERMIT THEM TO BE NAMED AS DEFENDANTS IN A PROCEEDING. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, IN THE PARTY’S DISCRETION, MAY INTERVENE AS A PARTY, MAY FILE BRIEFS IN THE MATTER OR MAY CHOOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN A PROCEEDING THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION. 

 

 

CAI continues the civil vs. private HOA government "turf wars"

Arizona CAI is at it again, fighting every little “turf war” to control the powers and authority over the members of the community, regardless of what the common law, real estate law, or constitutional law may hold.

HB2345

We go from controlling parking issues on public streets to restricting access to one’s home. Under the law, every owner has the right to ingress and egress to his home, and the right of visitors and family members to have access to his home.   Under the right to advertise the sale of a home, Scott Carpenter has spied a loop-hole in the new HB 2345 bill signed into law, where is advises his faithful followers that, you know, you can prevent open houses in gated communities. He is cautious to state, “But nothing in HB 2345 requires an association to provide access to potential buyers when the access protocol in place would not permit their entry.”   And he stops there without qualifying things like, signing in, like placing a sticker on the dash, etc., but leaves readers to the false conclusion that they can stop open houses in some way. 

This is an outright failure to recognize the intent of the legislature, and to “stir up the pot”, knowing full well that any such harassment of potential buyers and visitors would be seen as an outright “restraint on alienation” under property law —  a clause that seeks to prohibit the recipient from selling or otherwise transferring his interest in the property.

HB 2768

Here, Carpenter attempts to muddle the waters with respect to transfer fees.  He says to the HOA boards, go forth and amend your CC&Rs (and we will be glad to show you how), at our usual fee) to make the fees for reserve purposes a “legitimate” covenant. “By virtue of the exception, HB2768 will not prohibit the enforcement of “transfer fee covenants” in governing documents if the fee or charge is to be used “exclusively for the purpose authorized in the document”   And Carpenter also points, hey guys, collect these fees for recreational purposes, which the law still allows.  Once again, ignoring the intent of the legislature on behalf of their separatist, secessionist private principalities.
 

These “turf wars” will continue  until the legislature finally takes a strong hand to properly restrain these lawyers and HOA boards, and assert the supremacy of civil government over contractual, private governments that reject the Constitution.

Source:  http://blog.carpenterhazlewood.com/scott/ HB 2345 and HB 2768.

The Lament of the CAI against a pro-homeowner bill

Hear the lament of the California CAI LAC about a pro-homeowner bill.

  • AB 2502 would give financial incentives for owners to unfairly manipulate their legal obligation to pay HOA assessments by refusing to pay for approximately one and a half years or up to $3,600 until the association can take appropriate legal action for that owner to pay. This will cause financial havoc for HOA’s. Owners should never be given a right to intentionally stall the payment of debt.
  • Owners should not be given the right to unilaterally change the payment plan that was lawfully entered into by and between the owner and HOA. There would be no reason to enter into a plan if an owner could change it at will.
  • HOA’s must be able to retain counsel or other professionals to assist them in payment plans. The bill permits HOA’s to retain experts IF the owner grants permission to do so. HOA’s, just like owner’s must always be given an ability to retain professional assistance.
  • Creditors, like HOA’s, need to use collection agents periodically. Those agents, like other businesses, require payment. This bill makes it extremely difficult to pay those agents and as a consequence, HOA’s will rarely use them.

 

This is a desperate attempt to turn homeowners against their  own best interests, and to support the oppressive,  authoritarian HOA de facto government!   Hey CAI guys, what about adhesion contracts; “no need to see” constructive notice to bind one to a contract and to surrender one’s rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities; kangaroo court due process procedures; the right to subsequently alter the contract at purchase time without the buyer’s consent; unfair election procedures; and no enforcement against violation by the HOA government?  What about these gross injustices? 

To claim that homebuyers openly and fervently embraced this  treatment by the HOA is an insult to the good people of California.  It is grossly disrespectful and demeaning. 

 

This Grassroots Alert email alert ends with the true objective of CAI:  

Thank you for helping us preserve association solvency!!!  [and our income stream]

Case study: Just how are HOAs independent principalities?

The Arizona Senate Government Institutions Committee failed to pass, for the second consecutive year, a bill reaffirming the civil government’s power and authority over public roadways.  Bowing to pressures from an unincorporated town, Sun City, the legislators accepted the right of a group of private people, who are governed by CC&Rs, to infringe, usurp, and trespass upon local government ordinances.

Why is the Senate committee deferring to private agreements, which ignore constitutional law and its protections of our rights and freedoms?  Why is the legislature agreeing to HOA political government supremacy over public laws, while not recognizing the HOA as a de facto government and holding it accountable as such?  This deference gives the HOA pretty much of a free ride. 

We need to ask on what basis does the Restatement of Servitudes, which offers recommendations to the judicial system by pro-HOA “legal-academic aristocrats”, proclaim: “Although zoning regulations and servitudes are usually compatible in the sense that the more restrictive prevails . . . .”[i]   What does “usually compatible in the sense that the more restrictive prevails” mean?  And, we also need to ask is the current legal doctrine of CC&R supremacy legitimate and constitutionally valid? 

The Arizona Attorney General, in a 2006 Opinion[ii] on this issue, with respect to county fire code authority, cites case law and provides the following conflicting opinions:

  1. In general, when a contract is incompatible with a statute, the statute will control. . . . The exercise of police power to protect the public welfare, such as the enactment of fire codes, may supersede provisions in private contracts like CC&Rs if the government’s actions are reasonable and appropriate to the public purpose.
  2. restrictive covenants cannot avoid obligations imposed by parking ordinance;
  3. municipal ordinance imposing fence requirements supersedes restrictive covenant;
  4. The provisions of these and other fire codes supersede conflicting provisions in CC&Rs.

 

  1.  State or county fire codes supersede CC&Rs when fire code provisions directly conflict with CC&R provisions.
  2. When a fire code provision and a CC&R provision are not in direct conflict, but rather, are both restrictive, the provision that contains the more stringent restriction will control and will establish the permitted use.

 

The first 4 items from the AG’s Opinion are consistent and reflect an unequivocal doctrine that statutes and ordinances supersede CC&Rs.  While item (4) above introduces the issue of “conflict”, it still holds that the ordinance controls even when there is conflict.  Items (5) and (6) above, which are found in the summary section of this short 5-page opinion, are contradictory, and conflict with the first four items taken from the “Analysis” section of this Opinion.. 

We are now faced with the question: what is meant by “direct conflict” as opposed to just “conflict”?   The AG offers no clarification of these terms. This hair-splitting distinction reverses the cited case law and serves to support CC&Rs as controlling over ordinances when the covenant is “more  restrictive.”  

Perhaps, to better understand these words, we can ask: What meaning can be attached to “indirect conflict”? If, for example, a parking ordinance restricts parking from 10:00PM to 6:00AM, is  a covenant restricting parking at any time “more restrictive” or in “direct conflict”?  The pro-HOA quick answer is: obviously it’s more restrictive.  The criterion of  “more restrictive” to grant HOA agreements as controlling is without any rational legal basis to serve as criteria for the denial of legitimate government authority as set forth in the statutes and ordinances.   The only rational basis for a government interest for the surrender of civil authority to a private entity is that “that’s what this private group wants.”  

But the denial of our rights and privileges rises to a constitutional issue, which must requires a more stringent test of “a compelling and necessary government interest”. Those raising the “safe parking” issue in opposition to the have over remedies in law to effectively address their concerns without a wholesale grant of authority to the HOA. . “More restrictive” denies rights belonging to the people by a private organization —  the right, in our example, that the people enjoyed from freedom to park at all other unrestrictive times.  “More restrictive” directly conflicts with the rights belonging to the people.

It should be understood that any such enforcement by the courts could be challenged under the state constitution’s “privileges and immunities” clause, or under the color of law doctrine of 42 U.S.C 1983.

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . .

 

Covenants that are unconstitutional, contrary to public policy, unreasonable, or arbitrary and capricious are invalid and unenforceable.  Pro-HOA devotees offer the desperate and misleading argument that “members agreed to be bound by the CC&Rs, raising the issue of “contract interference.” Which leads to a multitude of questions concerning the validity of the consent to have agreed under the requirements for a bona fide contract.  Which leads to the argument that servitudes law with its constructive notice doctrine — homeowners are bound, sight unseen to the CC&Rs — controlling issues of constitutional law.[iii]  Which “turns the Constitution on its head” and leads to questions of a constitutionally valid surrender of one’s rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities. Which, coming full circle, leads to covenants that are unconstitutional, contrary to public opinion, unreasonable, or arbitrary and capricious are invalid and unenforceable.

Notes

[i] Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes, § 3.1 cmt. c (2000).

[ii] ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION, Terry Goddard, No. I06-005, (R06-009), November 15, 2006.

[iii] Supra, n. 1, § 3.1, cmt. h. (“The question whether a servitude unreasonably burdens a fundamental constitutional right is determined as a matter of property law, and not constitutional law“).